Delta Hawk DHK180 for my Socata Tampico TB9, I just paid the deposit

Kiddo's Driver said:
I wonder if I could field approval a Rotax 916 in since the HP is within 10% of stock...
Click to expand...
FYI: engine swaps are beyond a the limits of a field approval. It changed about 25 years ago.

You also wont be able to navigate the approval process without the assistance of a DAR and DER unless you want to wait 20 years to complete the project. And even though a One-Only STC cant be sold out right you can sell the data package or develop the data package so that it can role into a Standard STC.

Regardless, in my experience, best first step is to sit down with a local DAR, pay his hour rate, and go over your project plan. He or she should be able to give you a close idea of the specific process you need plus an estimated timeframe and cost. Then you can start to make calculated determinations vs guesses. While it may seem a daunting task its doable and engine swaps are still done on a semi-regular basis across the industry. If you got more questions, post them.
 
tsts4 said:
Do you have the power performance curve for the Delta Hawk? It would be interesting to compare that against the Lycoming’s curve to see if even with the max power limitation, the DH produces more power at altitude.
Click to expand...
No, but I'll be asking for that next.
I'll also ask if I can post the data I am getting from them.
What I have so far is an eight page data sheet. I was specifically asking about size, weight, and CG so I could start seeing how it would fit & how it would effect the cg. That was when I saw the 5 minute limit at 180hp & 135hp continuous lines.
 
www.kitplanes.com

DeltaHawk Receives FAA Certification - KITPLANES

The long-awaited DeltaHawk engine has received FAA certification in its 180-hp form. According to the company, “The 180 hp DHK180 is the first of a family of engines to come from DeltaHawk.” Labeled a “game changer,” the DHK is an inverted, liquid-cooled, two-stroke-diesel V-4 with turbocharging...
www.kitplanes.com www.kitplanes.com
 
Tarheelpilot said:
www.kitplanes.com

DeltaHawk Receives FAA Certification - KITPLANES

The long-awaited DeltaHawk engine has received FAA certification in its 180-hp form. According to the company, “The 180 hp DHK180 is the first of a family of engines to come from DeltaHawk.” Labeled a “game changer,” the DHK is an inverted, liquid-cooled, two-stroke-diesel V-4 with turbocharging...
www.kitplanes.com www.kitplanes.com
Click to expand...
Yep, that’s the one I have a deposit on.
 
That thing makes 180 hp? Man, technology these days
 
Curious, I have been looking around. What os the price for the 180HP version?

Tim
 
2 stroke supercharged, turbocharged. I sure love the old Detroit 2 stroke line. The DD 8V92 TA's we had in one boat ran like scalded apes and sounded so good doing so.
 
Im pretty pumped on this engine, even though I could probably never afford one. It seems ideal compared to the lycosaurs that are less efficient.
 
I got some confirmation on some info today.
Looking at Q2 2025 for first delivery. :(
No options for a vacuum system according to the guy I was talking to. Not an issue for me. I am about to put in two G5s and dropping my vacuum system.
They are getting two higher HP engines certified in the future, but it will be later in 2025.
The latest approved block will do 180HP up to 6,000 feet. Decays down to 150HP at 12,000 feet. Waaayyyyy better than my O-320.
My O-320-D2A starts at 160HP, is down to 135HP at 4500 feet, and just keeps going down from there.
About 410 pounds FWF without the prop. Includes the engine mount and cowling. That is significantly heavier than my current engine.
1716410431555.png
 
Ed Haywood said:
Diesels go farther on a given weight of fuel, correct?
Click to expand...
Not sure about that, I do know Jet A has more energy density than avgas but that density generates a weight penalty which is not insignificant for a full fuel load in a typical GA aircraft.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Diesels go farther on a given weight of fuel, correct?
Click to expand...
Based on the numbers they published, the increased fuel economy per gallon at a given HP outweighs the increased weight of that gallon of fuel.
I’m traveling now so can’t access my numbers, but I think it was a 10% decrease in fuel burn by weight for a given HP. Obviously being able to push out more HP would burn more fuel, but that is expected.
 
Brad W said:
Just this morning I was thinking about this topic.... well really the more general diesel vs spark....my context is daydreaming about homebuilt...
still your decision tree list is interesting

I was asking myself why more folks aren't using diesels?....
generally cheaper, as you said
jet A is a bit heavier per gallon, so that's a hit
but Jet A has more BTU's energy per gallon, and I recon that's what drives the increased efficiency. I haven't done the math, but could you could carry fewer gallons of jet A at the same weight as full gasoline for equal energy.... so it would be a wash?

you seem to be weighting the constant power to altitude heavily in your equation.... couldn't you get the same (or at least similar) from a turbo gasser?

Does a diesel have the same 'simple' set-up in that a traditional Av engine will keep running without electrical power, etc..?
Click to expand...
Jet-A and diesel fuel are denser than gasoline, but have more energy per gallon (quite a bit) though only slightly more energy per pound. But the engine itself is more efficient, by a good amount. Look at the performance of the DA62, which is underpowered compared to a Baron, but in the real world, a fuel sipper.
 
It's about .7 pounds more per gallon of jet a vs avgas. So at 100 gallons of tank available it's only 70 lbs difference.
 
It's been "coming soon" since I first saw their page.
 
I don't get on Facebook so didn't see that, just checked their website.
 
Update: I still have the deposit down, but I am going a simpler route with the Tampico.
I'm working through getting a one-time STC to install it & a McCauley Black Mac prop in it, and essentially turning it into a TB10 with 40-gallon tanks instead of 54-gallon tanks like in a factory TB10.
The Diesel needs to go into a EAB aircraft.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I'm working through getting a one-time STC to install it
Click to expand...
Perhaps discuss with your DAR installing the Delta under Experimental Exhibition while you work the One Only STC process? You may have to operate initially under a couple cycles of Exp/R&D before getting the Exp/Exh ticket, but you could start to build data for the STC process. Good luck.
 
Bell206 said:
Perhaps discuss with your DAR installing the Delta under Experimental Exhibition while you work the One Only STC process? You may have to operate initially under a couple cycles of Exp/R&D before getting the Exp/Exh ticket, but you could start to build data for the STC process. Good luck.
Click to expand...
I've got to quit posting while I'm half asleep.

I completely forgot to mention that I decided to move from an O-320 with a fixed pitch to an O-360 with a CS prop, instead of doing the diesel in the Tampico. It is a MUCH simpler STC to earn.
I love the diesel, but the cost associated with installing a completely new engine design into a low volume aircraft design is simply not justifiable. There are not enough of them in the world to break even selling STC and the cost of even doing a one time STC is not worth it.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I completely forgot to mention that I decided to move from an O-320 with a fixed pitch to an O-360 with a CS prop, instead of doing the diesel in the Tampico.
Click to expand...
Same comment applies. You can start work on the alteration before you start the STC process. Using an O-360 makes it even easier on a number of levels. Once you develop some data on the swap and your O-360 plan looks viable, then start the STC application process? Or simply fly around your O-360 TB under Exp/Exh and enjoy it? However, can't state enough to sit down with a DAR before you start anything simply to fully understand the process plus develop a relationship that you will need no matter what route you will follow.
 
Bell206 said:
Same comment applies. You can start work on the alteration before you start the STC process. Using an O-360 makes it even easier on a number of levels. Once you develop some data on the swap and your O-360 plan looks viable, then start the STC application process? Or simply fly around your O-360 TB under Exp/Exh and enjoy it? However, can't state enough to sit down with a DAR before you start anything simply to fully understand the process plus develop a relationship that you will need no matter what route you will follow.
Click to expand...
I've already met with the, used to be called, ACO. It is an STC based on design comparison. I'm just about done with the comparison. My initial guess on what would need to be changed was about 80% right. There was one $$ gotcha that I should have guessed, but missed. Not a deal breaker.
 
Welp, an IO-360 with CS prop is a very proven combo. Go with a Hartzel metal prop. Those composites look sexy til you meet someone grounded from rain.

What are the costs associated with a one-time STC?
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I've already met with the, used to be called, ACO. It is an STC based on design comparison. I'm just about done with the comparison. My initial guess on what would need to be changed was about 80% right. There was one $$ gotcha that I should have guessed, but missed. Not a deal breaker.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So you are going to have the Certification Branch engineers perform all the work and approvals for your STC? Have you started the application process yet?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Welp, an IO-360 with CS prop is a very proven combo. Go with a Hartzel metal prop. Those composites look sexy til you meet someone grounded from rain.

What are the costs associated with a one-time STC?
Click to expand...
Grounded from the rain?

Tim
 
tspear said:
Grounded from the rain?

Tim
Click to expand...

Yeah, the MTV props can get ruined by flying in rain. Those props are common among the aerobatic set. Not unusual for a few of them to get stuck at a contest.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Yeah, the MTV props can get ruined by flying in rain. Those props are common among the aerobatic set. Not unusual for a few of them to get stuck at a contest.
Click to expand...
I guess mine was a unicorn. Flew through lots of rain, never had any problems.
 
Don’t most of them have a metal leading edge these days?
 
Salty said:
Don’t most of them have a metal leading edge these days?
Click to expand...
I believe the MT are nickel. Buts it's still got a wood core. Maybe he was worried about the wood?
 
Racerx said:
I believe the MT are nickel. Buts it's still got a wood core. Maybe he was worried about the wood?
Click to expand...
Older MT props had stainless steel leading edges. Now there is an optional nickel leading edge. It's possible really old MT props didn't have any metal leading edges. In that case then rain could definitely cause damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top